Two other countries separated by a common language

[Chris F Waigl]

Doug Harris wrote:
> As well they might (ask that question). As, similarly,
> they are inclined to ask for "bathrooms" when having
> no intention whatsoever of bathing, [...]

I may have already told the story, from my time in Paris, of how I got
into something very close to an argument with one of my closest friends
at the time, an American, over whether there was a mirror in my
bathroom: I *knew* that the object in question existed, right over the
washbasin, next to the tub; she insisted there was no mirror whatsoever
in my bathroom ... only the toilet facilities themselves. (When that was
cleared up I asked somewhat testily how she would call a room whose
primary purpose was to take baths in, complete with a lovely sit-down
tub. She sort of saw the rationale behind my calling it "bathroom", but
decided on "washroom" in the end.)

Another story is that of the young US exchange student, first time
abroad, who a friend of mine was part of an unofficial welcome committee
for. He arrived on a British Airways flight, and had felt rather
offended by hearing the flight attendants referring to the location of
the "toilets". One of our group didn't even understand what his problem
was and launched into a long explanation about how it was indeed the
flight attendants' job to direct passengers to the location of the
toilets, and didn't he prefer being told beforehand instead of having to
figure it out on his own from the seating plan?

On a different note, as far as euphemisms for toilets go, I found it
surprisingly easy to adapt to the Canadian "washroom" -- I believe
because using the facilities in fact includes the act of washing (at
least my hands, sometimes my face); however, certainly not bathing. Even
now, if I am unsure about the squeamishness level of the company I'm in
and therefore need a more obscuring euphemism than I'd normally use,
"washroom" is it. (In the office where I work in London, "loo" and
"toilet" would be the two most common terms.)

As for South African English, the most striking feature I've come across
(in addition to raising just about every [@] -- the 'cat' vowel -- to
[E] -- the 'bed' vowel) to  is "just now". This adverbial designates a
point in time somewhere within the line of sight of "now" (past or
future). It does not, however, imply immediate proximity. So "I'll do it
just now" means about the same as "I'm putting it on my to-do list and
will get to it at some point in the foreseeable future". It doesn't mean
"I'll get started on it right away". Similarly, "they had a child just
now" can refer to a situation where the child in question is a few
months or even years old. (If "just now" isn't good enough, a task can
be requested to be done "now now", which means, well, now.)

Chris Waigl

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org